Posted on 02/22/2005 10:14:45 AM PST by areafiftyone
The former prosecutor who helped draft the law that Democrats say was violated when someone in the Bush administration leaked a CIA worker's name to columnist Robert Novak now says that no laws were broken in the case.
Writing with First Amendment lawyer Bruce Sanford in the Washington Post recently, former Assistant Deputy Attorney General Victoria Toensing explained that she helped draft the law in question, the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act.
Says Toensing, "The Novak column and the surrounding facts do not support evidence of criminal conduct."
For Plame's outing to have been illegal, the one-time deputy AG says, "her status as undercover must be classified." Also, Plame "must have been assigned to duty outside the United States currently or in the past five years."
Since in neither case does Plame qualify, Toensing says: "There is a serious legal question as to whether she qualifies as 'covert.'"
The law also requires that the celebrated non-spy's outing take place by someone who knew the government had taken "affirmative measures to conceal [the agent's] relationship" to the U.S., a prospect Toensing says is unlikely.
Other signs that no laws were broken include the fact that after Plame was outted, the CIA's general counsel took no steps to prosecute Novak, as has been done to other reporters under similar circumstances.
Neither did then-CIA Director George Tenet or his deputy pick up the phone to tell Novak that the publication of her name would threaten national security and her safety, as is also routinely done when the CIA is serious about prohibiting publication.
In fact, the myth that laws were violated in the Plame case began to unravel in October 2003, in a column by New York Times scribe Nicholas Kristof, who explained that Valerie Plame had abandoned her covert role a full nine years before.
"The C.I.A. suspected that Aldrich Ames had given [Plame's] name [along with those of other spies] to the Russians before his espionage arrest in 1994. So her undercover security was undermined at that time, and she was brought back to Washington for safety reasons."
Kristof also noted that Plame had begun making the transition to CIA "management" even before she was outted, explaining that "she was moving away from 'noc' – which means non-official cover ... to a new cover as a State Department official, affording her diplomatic protection without having 'C.I.A.' stamped on her forehead."
Noted the Timesman: "All in all, I think the Democrats are engaging in hyperbole when they describe the White House as having put [Plame's] life in danger and destroyed her career; her days skulking along the back alleys of cities like Beirut and Algiers were already mostly over."
So why – with a special prosecutor now threatening to toss Time magazine's Matthew Cooper and New York Times reporter Judith Miller in jail if they don't give up their sources in the Plame case – aren't their lawyers invoking the "no laws were broken" defense?
Explains the National Review's Rich Lowry: The Miller-Cooper defense hasn't made this argument because it would be too embarrassing to admit that the Bush administration's "crime of the century" wasn't really a crime at all, especially after a year and a half of media chest-beating to the contrary.
"It was just a Washington flap played for all it was worth by the same news organizations now about to watch their employees go to prison over it," says Lowry.
"That's the truth that the media will go to any length to avoid."
;^D
No journalists were hurt in the publication of this thread.
Dummies were used in all the suicide scenes.
The faked documents were not seen by our CIA until February 2003, after the SOTU speech. They were almost immediately ascertained to be forgeries by us. We told the UN. It is not a case where they told us something that we did not detect.
Your point about Wilson and his ties to Niger is precisely why the question asked by Novak was on point: Why was Joe Wilson sent to Niger?
The timeline goes: Wilson sent to Niger in Feb. 2002, forged documents given to our embassy in Rome in October 2002, but not analyzed by our CIA until February 2003.
That Wilson deliberately put out the notion that he was sent based on documents that were in our hands (when they were not) is one of the key points in this tale of intrigue and deceit; a scheme hatched by rogues in the government and helped by a compliant media.
If we freepers can assemble the timeline and compare statements to the actual events, then so can the media. But they, who cried about Jeff Gannon daring to quote WH press releases in his reports, would rather take dictation from enemies of this country.
Preach it!
Another point about Plame as covert agent.
The left likes to say that even if she in particular had not been covert for many years that it still was unethical, if not illegal, to reveal this due to contacts she had made, etc.
First, Novak did not say she was covert. He said she was an analyst. The covert description was supplied by Newsday a few days later.
Second, we have been treated to hearing from former colleagues of hers who say how they all were undercover together. Well, if they are in the public telling anyone who will listen about how they were covert at one time, doesn't that undermine their point that Plame's covert status was supposed to be secret until the end of time? Of course it does.
EXCELLENT assessment of Kelly. 100 percent agreement here.
Well, this should not shock anybody.
It looks like Plame was not in a classified position when she made the news.
And it would be a stretch to go after someone who revealed the identity of someone with PAST secret works.
If they did that, they would have to charge and convict every 'former cia officer' tv analyst that goes on the news channels.
Then there is the reality that everybody in Washington D.C. knew what she did.....since she and her husband loved to tell people in an effort to gain attention.
Agreed...
Likewise, dear. You are very spot-on!
It probably took Fitzgerald the better part of twenty minutes to conclude that no crime had been committed in the Plame Name Game.
However, the media's screeching for a special prosecutor and a grand jury to investigate the Plame Affair was perfect cover for a grand jury to be convened...to investigate all the leaks to the media from the CIA and other government agencies that actually had national security implications.
The administration took advantage of the pretext presented by the Plame Affair to begin said investigation -- with full and unwitting media support. And we know this is what has actually been going on -- though the press has maintained a state of denial throughout.
Now, the joke's on...who???
One other pertinent fact tying Wilson in as the common thread in this cabal, is that he also knows Saddam Hussein. I believe Novak reported that Wilson was the last State Department Official to speak to Saddam either before he invaded Kuwait or before Desert Storm. Anyway, he was around after April Glaspie left Baghdad.
I personally find Occam's Razor reasoning(compared to the giant coincidence theory) leads to some probability that Wilson, et alii, conceived and executed this plot in order to attack the casas belli of the impending Iraq invasion.
I think the big question is, who are the "et alii?"
Another factlet here is that Wilson has ties to Saddam Hussein. He was in Baghdad after April Glaspie was recalled and was the last State Department Official to speak to Saddam before either his invasion of Kuwait or Desert Storm.
Also, we know when the Document was given to Corriere della Sera, the Italian newspaper and by whom, but do we know when it was first known to exist? Do we know who forged it?
Do you have answers or opinions?
I don't know when word of the documents first was heard of, but some say that Wilson was sent because the content of the forged documents was heard about, although were not in our possession.
I and others on this forum agree with the questions surrounding the implications of Wilson being the last man to speak to Saddam before the first Gulf War. In the beginning the media painted him as a super-patriot for this factoid.
Kind of like how Cliff May described the democrat who told him how Plame worked at the CIA: May said it was said like (in answer to May's raised eyebrows over why anti-administration Joe Wilson went to Niger), Oh, his wife is CIA, May said he was told in tones of they're patriots first, partisans second.
Yeah, right.
Morning C.C.!
Just a short note to thank you. Why? From time to time you will post to me a clarification (maybe a correction), and I REALLY do appreciate it. Even if the post is days old, I don't care! I like getting the straight 'skinny', and I appreciate the time you take to set me straight!!
Thank you muchly! :)
"That has always been my belief. He was on an official trip for the CIA who had ownership of any information that he brought back - they alone had the authority to release it to the public."
I agree having worked in Special Access Programs. I have no doubt that the information Wilson was sent to "verify" was sourced from intelligence sources-meaning it was highly classified. I too believe the law was broken when he went to the Press with the information.
A couple of more questions on this:
Seeing that Wilson was no longer in the employ of the US Gov't, did he maintain a security clearance and have the requisite 5 year background check?
Was he "Read in" to the program he was working?
Did his wife break federal hiring rules by influencing his hiring?
Did he also look into the other 4 African nations which produce Uranium, or just Niger since the forged memos were coming down the pike?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Is it my imagination or did some one, several months ago, post a rumor on this site that the French were the doc authors?
I personally think it's the Russians for two reasons. If Iraq was a client of France, it was a client of the Russians in Spades. Second, thru their disinformation section, the old KGB owned many journalists. I think they may still own one at Corriere dela Sera. Looks like their finesse touch to launder it. Oui ou non ou peut-etre?
Is this really Plame and is this really in Vanity Fair?
Yes it is. It's in the January 2004 edition.
Yes it is. It's in the January 2004 edition.
UPDATE: Better photo:
She's also in the new July 2005 Vanity Fair edition as well (nothing can keep her from a camera it seems!), middle right across from the text:
And here too appearing with Wilson openly at yet another high-profile celebrity event where Wilson squeezed in some book-signing (keeping this story alive make him [and her] ever more money you know):
http://www.nathanslunch.com/PhotoPage.htm
Read this about this woman who "has guarded her privacy, with rare exceptions." :
http://www.villainouscompany.com/vcblog/archives/2005/07/ny_timeswatcha_3.html
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
